Yes, the Crystal Singer series was good. I also rather liked the Freedom series, as well as the Doona series. Then there's Restoree: a great little stand-alone(?) story.
Thanks to her, my reading ability at 11 was that of a 16 year old (with plenty of credit to my grade one teacher too, of course). Her Pern books still have a special place in my heart (hear hear! to the dragon tribute).
If the carbon cycle was worth the paper it takes to write two words, we wouldn't have coal deposits or limestone cliffs. It's too slow. Until we started digging the stuff out of the ground, every carbon based life-form on this planet was carbon negative, and even then, we're still carbon negative in the grand scheme of things. While we might be able to put a large chunk of the carbon back into the atmosphere, we'll never get it all (not that we'd want to, anyway: things might get a little stuffy).
Photosynthetic life has been committing slow suicide by depleting its primary "food" source, and then dumping its results "on the ground" to rot. Sure, that releases some carbon into the atmosphere, but methane isn't particularly useful to most life, and the rest winds up turning into coal.
Similar story for those life-forms that use carbon dioxide as building material (crustaceans). They dump their used product on the sea floor and it becomes limestone.
Here's something to consider. Some billion years ago (I don't know the exact numbers, might be just hundreds of millions), the entire world was desert (mostly barren rock, maybe some sand), but plants spread out and converted the world to lichen covered rocks, grassy plains and forests. Now, we have spreading deserts. Why? Sure, we may have started some (maybe even all) of them by cutting down too many trees (and other agricultural practices), but considering what plants did in the past, that should not be the case. For some reason, the plants are unable to overtake the deserts. There are two major differences that hamper plant growth: there's a lot more sand now (shifting sand can bury plants), and there's a lot less carbon dioxide in the air. The plants can't get enough food to grow quickly enough to encroach on the deserts.
We are part of the carbon cycle. Originally, we were on the same "side" as everything else, sucking carbon out of the atmosphere (net, otherwise we wouldn't grow), but now we are on the other "side", pushing it back in.
If carbon dioxide causes (or contributes) to global warming (and that's still an "if") and causes sea levels to rise, so be it (and my butt is maybe 4m above sea level). Sure, rising sea levels will mean less arable land, but higher carbon dioxide levels will mean better growing conditions, so the net might be more arable land.
If the carbon was worth anything, we wouldn't have this discussion because humans wouldn't be able to find enough carbon to put into the atmosphere for anyone to notice. Probably wouldn't have the Internet, either.
If there's evidence that the speed of light isn't an absolute barrier, it means our current understanding of relativity is wrong.
Not necessarily wrong, just missing some details. If our current understanding was wrong, we would have already seen all sorts of phenomena that don't fit the theory.
It matters very much. 100mSv over 2 years is the upper "legal" limit for radiation workers. Over 2 hours, it would be best to steer clear of radiation sources (bananas should be ok) for a couple of years. Over 2 seconds... unless it's a brief burst, I hope your will is in order.
While it might be due to decreasing amounts of ice on the mountains, it would be more accurate to say it's due to decreased melting of ice on the mountains. Now, whether that's due to there being less ice to melt, or the ice just isn't melting as fast as it was in the past is the real question. If it is that there's less ice, then another question is is it because the ice has been melting faster, or has it not been forming as quickly (ie, decreased precipitation).
Pointing at decreased melt-water and saying there's less ice is missing other possibilities.
Pointing at decreased ice and saying it's due to increased melting (higher temperatures) is also missing other possibilities.
My fear is that nothing they come up with works as ultimately you cannot fight the Sun and Earth's natural cycles and all the blame will be set upon carbon.
My fear is that we succeed in getting atmospheric CO2 levels to drop, accelerating the spread of the deserts. Or worse, the severe stunting of agricultural plants.
CO2 is not a pollutant: it is food for all photosynthesizing organisms, and thus indirectly for us. Even though non-photosynthesizing organisms produce CO2, all are net CO2 sinks (exhibit A: limestone). CO2 is currently around 300ppm. It does not become a problem for humans until around 10000ppm (1%), and then it causes only drowsiness. 80000ppm(8%) is getting rather problematic, though (wikipedia). Atmospheric levels haven't been above 7000ppm for hundreds of millions of years.
If CO2 causes global warming (this is in no way proven yet), then at worst we lose some coastlines. Glaciers melting might be a good thing: that's a lot of water locked up in ice that would be better off in rivers and lakes. Glacial growth is an interruption in the water cycle.
I want my kids to be able to eat. If they have to move to higher ground and/or fight of other people to survive, so be it.
Don't think you're the only one. Everybody thinks I'm a food. I even had the nickname MC in university. There has been maybe two times I didn't have to spell my name for somebody.
Hmm, since the mass of the Earth is 5.98e27g, Oxygen (most abundant element in the Earth's crust) is 16g/mol and a mole is 6.02e23, that's about 3e-8 of all the electrons in the Earth.
No, "a near miss" is correct. As in, it missed, but it was very near the target (as opposed to a "far miss" (not normally said?): a long way off target).
No, it's just that in the long run new hardware won't help Linux exactly because of that comfort zone issue. And these that's, that's really the only problem that Linux has: it's outside of people's comfort zone. The article is right: the combination of new hardware and new software is just too much for people to cope with.
I can vouch for this, but from the other direction.
I bought a netbook late last year to replace my dying laptop (I'd dropped once, and put it in its case without putting it to sleep a couple of times: not good). Because I couldn't be bothered fighting to get one with Linux installed (language barriers don't help). With the combination of having been using Linux for 11 years, the cramped conditions, etc, my 10 minute Windows experience (just enough to get hardware information) was a nightmare. Once I got Linux on there with a fairly familiar environment (Gnome, though I usually use blackbox), I could cope with handling the smaller screen and (Japanese) keyboard. I can very easily imagine someone who's never used Linux freaking out trying to use a Linux installed netbook.
The reason new hardware that locks out Microsoft won't help Linux is that it doesn't exist, and never will (for any meaningful period of time). Look at servers: while Linux isn't yet beating Microsoft, it's doing well enough, and that's on PC based servers.
It's not hardware that will help Linux, but rather governments and businesses adopting Linux for policy reasons (currently insignificant) and people gaining exposure to Linux through work. The same way Windows became popular.
The problem comes down to whether enough governments and businesses adopt Linux. Of course, games being produced for Linux will help, but that's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
Linux's desktop is pretty good. The problem is, it's unfamiliar. Windows wins not because its desktop is any better, but because people know it. "Better the devil you know."
Slashdot Mirror
Not many. They all got sent overseas to get their asses shot off.
Actually, "A Nude Hope" (or "A New Grope") is better. There is such a thing as "going too fas...er, far".
Heh, news to me. And I like Pat Benatar. Cool. It's nice to know the connection, thank you.
Never ends your light
But forever is the night
Where flies your spirit.
And in the cold of Between
Shall our hearts forever keen.
I always loved the poems she put at the beginning of the chapters in many of her dragon books. I hope she likes it.
Yes, the Crystal Singer series was good. I also rather liked the Freedom series, as well as the Doona series. Then there's Restoree: a great little stand-alone(?) story.
Thanks to her, my reading ability at 11 was that of a 16 year old (with plenty of credit to my grade one teacher too, of course). Her Pern books still have a special place in my heart (hear hear! to the dragon tribute).
Well, may she forever fly with Moreta.
If the carbon cycle was worth the paper it takes to write two words, we wouldn't have coal deposits or limestone cliffs. It's too slow. Until we started digging the stuff out of the ground, every carbon based life-form on this planet was carbon negative, and even then, we're still carbon negative in the grand scheme of things. While we might be able to put a large chunk of the carbon back into the atmosphere, we'll never get it all (not that we'd want to, anyway: things might get a little stuffy).
Photosynthetic life has been committing slow suicide by depleting its primary "food" source, and then dumping its results "on the ground" to rot. Sure, that releases some carbon into the atmosphere, but methane isn't particularly useful to most life, and the rest winds up turning into coal.
Similar story for those life-forms that use carbon dioxide as building material (crustaceans). They dump their used product on the sea floor and it becomes limestone.
Here's something to consider. Some billion years ago (I don't know the exact numbers, might be just hundreds of millions), the entire world was desert (mostly barren rock, maybe some sand), but plants spread out and converted the world to lichen covered rocks, grassy plains and forests. Now, we have spreading deserts. Why? Sure, we may have started some (maybe even all) of them by cutting down too many trees (and other agricultural practices), but considering what plants did in the past, that should not be the case. For some reason, the plants are unable to overtake the deserts. There are two major differences that hamper plant growth: there's a lot more sand now (shifting sand can bury plants), and there's a lot less carbon dioxide in the air. The plants can't get enough food to grow quickly enough to encroach on the deserts.
We are part of the carbon cycle. Originally, we were on the same "side" as everything else, sucking carbon out of the atmosphere (net, otherwise we wouldn't grow), but now we are on the other "side", pushing it back in.
If carbon dioxide causes (or contributes) to global warming (and that's still an "if") and causes sea levels to rise, so be it (and my butt is maybe 4m above sea level). Sure, rising sea levels will mean less arable land, but higher carbon dioxide levels will mean better growing conditions, so the net might be more arable land.
If the carbon was worth anything, we wouldn't have this discussion because humans wouldn't be able to find enough carbon to put into the atmosphere for anyone to notice. Probably wouldn't have the Internet, either.
Simple: create a new religion and call the old one paganism and/or devil worship. What can go wrong? ;)
You sir, need to learn what a crumpet is. After that, you might understand cricket.
If there's evidence that the speed of light isn't an absolute barrier, it means our current understanding of relativity is wrong.
Not necessarily wrong, just missing some details. If our current understanding was wrong, we would have already seen all sorts of phenomena that don't fit the theory.
Go fast enough, and even the extremely rarefied gases in interstellar space might as well be a brick wall.
It matters very much. 100mSv over 2 years is the upper "legal" limit for radiation workers. Over 2 hours, it would be best to steer clear of radiation sources (bananas should be ok) for a couple of years. Over 2 seconds... unless it's a brief burst, I hope your will is in order.
While it might be due to decreasing amounts of ice on the mountains, it would be more accurate to say it's due to decreased melting of ice on the mountains. Now, whether that's due to there being less ice to melt, or the ice just isn't melting as fast as it was in the past is the real question. If it is that there's less ice, then another question is is it because the ice has been melting faster, or has it not been forming as quickly (ie, decreased precipitation).
Pointing at decreased melt-water and saying there's less ice is missing other possibilities.
Pointing at decreased ice and saying it's due to increased melting (higher temperatures) is also missing other possibilities.
My fear is that nothing they come up with works as ultimately you cannot fight the Sun and Earth's natural cycles and all the blame will be set upon carbon.
My fear is that we succeed in getting atmospheric CO2 levels to drop, accelerating the spread of the deserts. Or worse, the severe stunting of agricultural plants.
CO2 is not a pollutant: it is food for all photosynthesizing organisms, and thus indirectly for us. Even though non-photosynthesizing organisms produce CO2, all are net CO2 sinks (exhibit A: limestone). CO2 is currently around 300ppm. It does not become a problem for humans until around 10000ppm (1%), and then it causes only drowsiness. 80000ppm(8%) is getting rather problematic, though (wikipedia). Atmospheric levels haven't been above 7000ppm for hundreds of millions of years.
If CO2 causes global warming (this is in no way proven yet), then at worst we lose some coastlines. Glaciers melting might be a good thing: that's a lot of water locked up in ice that would be better off in rivers and lakes. Glacial growth is an interruption in the water cycle.
I want my kids to be able to eat. If they have to move to higher ground and/or fight of other people to survive, so be it.
If it's liquid, it's drinkable. Now, the consequences of drinking it are another matter...
You left out the worst one: grabs your wallet.
No, you did not. The phrase you want is "raises the question". (No, I don't know the correct usage, though I've seen it posted a few times)
*Burp*
And tasty they were, too.
Yeah, I noticed that too. It was IBM's bios that was reversed engineered, not MS DOS.
Don't think you're the only one. Everybody thinks I'm a food. I even had the nickname MC in university. There has been maybe two times I didn't have to spell my name for somebody.
About 6e40 Electrons. Far too many to be talking about "exact", an I certainly don't want to be the one trying to weigh them.
>>> Me=9.10938215e-31
>>> 120e9*0.45/Me
5.9279541807344204e+40
Hmm, since the mass of the Earth is 5.98e27g, Oxygen (most abundant element in the Earth's crust) is 16g/mol and a mole is 6.02e23, that's about 3e-8 of all the electrons in the Earth.
No, "a near miss" is correct. As in, it missed, but it was very near the target (as opposed to a "far miss" (not normally said?): a long way off target).
You forgot saffron. I've seen it from $80000-$120000/kg)
No, it's just that in the long run new hardware won't help Linux exactly because of that comfort zone issue. And these that's, that's really the only problem that Linux has: it's outside of people's comfort zone. The article is right: the combination of new hardware and new software is just too much for people to cope with.
I can vouch for this, but from the other direction.
I bought a netbook late last year to replace my dying laptop (I'd dropped once, and put it in its case without putting it to sleep a couple of times: not good). Because I couldn't be bothered fighting to get one with Linux installed (language barriers don't help). With the combination of having been using Linux for 11 years, the cramped conditions, etc, my 10 minute Windows experience (just enough to get hardware information) was a nightmare. Once I got Linux on there with a fairly familiar environment (Gnome, though I usually use blackbox), I could cope with handling the smaller screen and (Japanese) keyboard. I can very easily imagine someone who's never used Linux freaking out trying to use a Linux installed netbook.
The reason new hardware that locks out Microsoft won't help Linux is that it doesn't exist, and never will (for any meaningful period of time). Look at servers: while Linux isn't yet beating Microsoft, it's doing well enough, and that's on PC based servers.
It's not hardware that will help Linux, but rather governments and businesses adopting Linux for policy reasons (currently insignificant) and people gaining exposure to Linux through work. The same way Windows became popular.
The problem comes down to whether enough governments and businesses adopt Linux. Of course, games being produced for Linux will help, but that's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
Linux's desktop is pretty good. The problem is, it's unfamiliar. Windows wins not because its desktop is any better, but because people know it. "Better the devil you know."
No, they are in orbit. When you fall out of a tree, you are in orbit. That orbit just happens to intersect with the ground.